I feel like stories have never been my go to. I always find myself playing games with excellent gameplay, rather than story (Mindustry, Balatro, Galaga, etc). I love a good story don’t get me wrong, but gameplay is my main attraction to games, and I feel thats where games started. If you look at retro games like Dig Dug or Adventure, or even modern indie titles like Balatro the attraction is basically 90% gameplay
I think that’s kind of the kicker, a lot of studios and franchises got big based on the quality of their story telling, but did poorly with audiences that were just there for the gameplay. The gameplay in these games is there to serve the story, to support it and facilitate it, not to shine by it’s own merits. But if you’re just there for the gameplay and don’t care about the story, then the gameplay will be boring.
So they’ve sanded down the story to make it easier for people who don’t care about it to follow what’s going on, and thus make the gameplay work for them…
But now you have a story built to serve gameplay, and gameplay built to serve the story. Nether is good on its own merits, so no one really likes it.
To me it feels like there is a fundamental dissonance in the video game industry. Where major publishers and studios can’t seem to internalize that there are two things that people might come to a game for; Video games as experiences, narratives, things to be explored; and video games as … well games, a set of mechanics to be interacted with, to be challenged by. This isn’t to say a game can’t be good at both, but many games are weighted one way or another.
Factorio is a truly absorbing gameplay experience, but it doesn’t really have a story beyond what is needed to frame and flavor the gameplay.
“Vampire the masquerade: bloodlines” is a classic of atmosphere, character interaction and role play, but just about everyone who played it will tell you the combat is serviceable at best, and there is one level in particular that most people just remove with a mod because it’s just combat, with no dialog or interactions with other characters.
So many major studios and publishers seem to routinely focus on the wrong elements of previously successful games. Taking the wrong lessons and misunderstanding what made previous title’s a huge success.
People are not coming to your story based RPG to play it mindlessly while listening to a podcast or audio book. If people are doing that, then clearly they’re not coming to it for the story, and the solution to that issue is to write a better story or refocus around what ever they are coming for.
This concept of a second screen show is so unbelievably fucking moronic… It’s your own damn fault if you’re not paying attention!
I have a second monitor that I play things on, and it’s either a stream of someone playing something similar or the same game, or it’s a show I’ve already watched and know the story of.
If I’m watching something new, then I’m watching it. To have stories dumbed down, or just butchered to suit tictok brainrotted people completely devoid of attention spans is so freaking depressing and only exacerbates the issue. But in the end I guess I get it, you’re out for a profit and it hurts to have a plethora of idiots rate you poorly because they weren’t paying attention and didn’t understand the story… Ughh…
I loved the servers that were 24/7 metro, no drags etc. some of those were (and still are) my favorite. Or pistols only, no Glock 18. When you get rid of custom servers you get rid of that custom experience.
The amount of time I’ve spent playing online games has fallen off a cliff after forced matchmaking, particularly SBMM. They’ve legitimately ruined my enjoyment of games.
I got into Overwatch for a bit, but the SBMM meant that at lower levels it was basically a coin flip if I would get a team that wanted to play as a team, or a bunch of kill whores who only cared about their K/D ratio. I don’t want to have to drop hundreds of hours int mastering the game just to have actual teamwork.
Oh, I love skill-based matchmaking. Without it, if you’re having a good time, it means your opponent is almost surely having a bad time, rather than keeping the matches close. At low ranks, often times a single piece of knowledge can escalate your play to a higher level, which can make those low ranks feel kind of swing-y, but I don’t know that that’s a problem that can really be solved unless you remove the asymmetry. That said, I no longer wish to substitute matchmaking for the likes of a server browser.
The big problem with matchmaking is that in the long run, it kills game. When people start to move on to a new thing, the population that stays because they're attached to the game gets fucked over by matchmaking.
The less people they are, the worse it works. That's when a server browser and the ability to run community server becomes crucial. It will keep a game alive for a decade after its last update.
Matchmaking puts people into a limited number of servers. Yeah, you get the problem of realizing that those folk have been playing Tribes 2 for over twenty years at this point but you also have people to play with on that one 24 player server. Versus twelve servers with 2 players and a bunch of bots (if the game has them) each.
I always would rather both options. But from a game health standpoint… hoppers tend to have clear advantages at most player counts.
I think the general idea is that if I want to spin up a server for my friend group that’s been gaming together for 20 years, we can buy the game and do just that. That’s opposed to the money I spent on the game being useless when they decide they want to stop paying for servers.
That’s perfectly acceptable justification to shut down gameservers and profit from people moving to the next version of the game. Gone are the days of private servers, especially with client and serverside mods, that kept people engaged with an older game for years. That’s not profitable.
Still, DICE insists the Portal browser will satisfy. It does have some qualities that simulate a classic server experience, like how you can earn full XP in Portal matches as long as the house rules closely resemble the vanilla ones.
The community “servers” aren’t persistent though. They’ll only stay online as long as someone is online and using that instance. If that last person leaves the server shuts down - as far as we know, it still seems a like murky, but without being able to rent servers I can’t imagine them just leaving all of them online for free
So in 2042, if you had the premium battle pass, you could set up one persistent server. It was hosted by them but didn’t disappear without players. I don’t know how it will work for bf6.
I think the most important feature is that we have persistent lobbies that don’t disband after a game like matchmaking. That they “stay online” while nobody uses it is really not the important part imo.
Vote with your wallet and don’t buy this. Many years ago we’ve got dedicated servers and free map builders. Nowadays we get matchmaking and 3 maps and additional 3 for 20 bucks.
It’s very simple. If it doesn’t have a Server Browser, has MTX, has Gacha, has Rootkits, is Online Only/No LAN, or is made by any of the AAA studios, I don’t play it.
That’s more then a server browser. You are just being deceptive. You cherry picked the one quote in the article that makes it look like there is nothing in your post and your comments aren’t honest.
What you are talking about is a whole other debate entirely and simply not how the industry runs anymore when it comes to multiplayer shooters.
I want that stuff too but that’s not what server browser means. The finals and cod don’t have server browsers. Bf6 will have a server browser.
That limitation, and the inability to sidestep DICE by renting a server that never shuts down, made it difficult for communities to take shape in Portal.
The ideas are bound together. Same with anti cheat. Same with preservation. Removing private servers caused all of these problems at the same time. The author of the article speaks for the group who want the community that I admitted never mattered to me, that Portal doesn’t provide, but other knock-on effects of the death of the server browser do matter to me.
There is a server browser. There are no servers hosted on private machines. I would like fully private servers too but there is still a server browser regardless.
They have explained what they are complaining about several times now, so get off your pedantic horse and either join the conversation that is happening or fuck off.
It bothers me because 90% of the people in the conversation think there will be only matchmaking and nothing else because of how OP framed it.
You want to talk about how you can’t have your own private server completely disconnected for EA, fine. But that doesn’t mean the game has no browser, jfc.
No, you seem to be the only one confused here. They said a REAL browser, not just a list of servers.
“… we should be able to do what we want with it, including running those max player/max ticket servers that run 24/7 on one map. We should be able to do it without DICE/EA’s permission, …”
Does that sound like OP was whining about simply not having a list of servers? Improve your reading comprehension before you whine about how something was stated.
we should be able to do what we want with it, including running those max player/max ticket servers that run 24/7 on one map.
You can do this because the game let’s you host a server (your rules or official ones) and includes a server browser so random people can find it and join your game.
We should be able to do it without DICE/EA’s permission
You can’t do this because although there is a server browser, you can’t run private servers disconnected from eas infrastructure.
I am correcting OP because most of what he said in his post and what people are repeating in the comments implies that there is only matchmaking and implies that the first part isn’t possible.
Or, hear me out, people are whining about their own experiences, complaining in general about how they hate matchmaking only games. Several people even specifically mention other games before they go on to complain.
This is mostly basic commiserating that you seem to be mistaking for misunderstanding.
IMO it’s the opposite, what exists now is less than a server browser. I’d call it a custom games browser instead. Whichever one you pick will be on the official servers.
I agree it isn’t how the industry is now, but it isn’t going to improve if everyone just accepts it.
Yep. This is the correct answer but that’s not what this thread is about; it’s a nostalgic circle jerk mixed with a sprinkling of “back in my day”.
Don’t get me wrong here, I like the suggestions in this thread but literally one of the suggestions being upvoted is how the game is planned to handle servers (quick join is random and then there will be a list of community servers).
I’m fine with the official servers being random join, as long as I can pick and choose a community server. Which to state again, is apparently planned.
I’m still waiting for reviews on release to make sure they hold true to their marketing though. Can’t trust shit from large studios.
Server browsers and dedicated servers are subjects that make me want to start with the old man “back in myyy day” style comments.
I saw somebody mention CS, which is a good one, but for me the peak was in Quake 2 because of personal circumstances like getting into overclocking and then moving to a university network connection when modems were the norm at home.
Certain servers running certain mods were awesome late-night hangouts. I have a few really fun memories of all of us coordinating to do goofy stuff rather than play whatever the game at hand was. Then somebody new would join the server and start wrecking us until we caught their attention with the text chat and got them involved too, lol.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne